NexGen Energy Ltd.

Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the NextGen Energy first quarter 2026 results conference call. As a reminder, all participants are in a listen-only mode, and the conference is being recorded. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question and answer session at the end. To join the question queue, you may press star then 1 on your telephone keypad. You will hear a tone acknowledging your request. Should you need assistance during the conference call, you may signal an operator by pressing star then zero. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Lee Currier, Chief Executive Officer and Director with NextGen at G-Limited. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Bessie. Good morning, and thank you for joining NextGen's Q1 2026 Financial Results and Investor Conference Call. My name is Lee Currier and I am the Chief Executive Officer. Today I am joined by Travis McPherson, Chief Commercial Officer, Ben Salter, Chief Financial Officer, and introducing to our quarterly calls, considering we are now entering into construction of this globally significant Rook One project, Chris Copley, NextGen's Project Director, Engineering and Construction. During the call, I will highlight NextGen's milestone achievements over the first quarter of 2026 including the final federal approval for the Rook One project, provide an update on the 2025 site construction program, upcoming plans for the construction phase, as we have already made the final investment decision, provide an update on some incredible drilling results released just this morning at our exciting PCE discovery, and speak to the next-gen strategy as we optimally advance towards production. At the conclusion of this presentation, we'll move to the Q&A portion of the call, where you'll have the opportunity to ask Travis, Ben, Chris and myself any questions you may have. Throughout the course of today's call, we'll be making forward-looking statements, so please visit our website for all the relevant disclaimers. In just the first few months of 2026, there's already proved to be a defining period for NextGen, marked by significant milestones. none bigger than the optimal final approval of the Rook 1 project for construction. Following NextGen's successful completion of the two-part Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission hearings on March 5, 2026, the CNSC then issued NextGen its licence to prepare site and construct the Rook 1 project, 14 business days after the conclusion of the Part 2 hearings. The approval process and response speed was a testament to the strength of the technical submission, NextGen's early and transparent communication with regulators, and the deep, genuine relationships established with local Indigenous nations and stakeholders over the past 13 years. This approval represents one of the most comprehensive regulatory processes undertaken for a resource project globally. It is the result of an unrelenting focus since 2013. I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate Denison Mines and CEO David Cates in the approval of their Phoenix project. We, NextGen, have moved with purpose and clarity to deliver a new standard for resources development, one where we encourage all stakeholders to expect better. NextGen's culture of innovation, open-mindedness and continuous improvement have cultivated significantly better outcomes across the board, for all stakeholders, and this will continue as we optimally progress through construction and into operation, where we will be the most significant new entrant into the mining sector in a generation. Nearly two months into the Middle East disruption, the global energy system is not just absorbing a supply shock, it's being structurally reshaped by it. The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has exposed how vulnerable and interconnected the global energy system truly is, highlighting the risks of over-reliance on hydrocarbons, particularly in geopolitically vulnerable regions. And so energy security is no longer being defined by access alone, but by resilience, the ability to withstand disruption. That means nuclear. domestic generation growth and capacity, and critically reducing exposure to geopolitical choke points. Nations have been forced to reassess their energy strategies in real time, which has ultimately accelerated focus on nuclear power as a reliable, sovereign energy source. This is particularly true given the massive demand growth for power anticipated from electrification of transportation and industrial systems as well as data centres. These are new parts of the industrial landscape that are building new power generation for material electrical needs, that are choosing systems that provide highly efficient, high output, reliable nuclear energy. Historically, oil shocks have acted as a catalyst for structural change in energy policy, and this recent conflict is already being described as the most significant energy shock in modern history. With oil and gas still accounting for approximately 60% of global primary energy supply, a policy response prioritising security, stability and diversification is inevitable and has been transitioning following the impacts to energy supply chains due to the Ukraine war. The direction is clearer than ever. Nuclear energy is not optional in the energy mix. It is essential to delivering long-term energy security and with the betterment of industry and civilisation. There are currently 79 reactors under construction with operating capacity established within the next five years will total an additional 18% to the global nuclear electrical grid. This global shift is occurring at a time when high-quality scalable uranium supply is scarce and depleting rapidly. placing a premium on projects with the jurisdiction, geology and technical capability to deliver, positioning Rook One's project as the most valuable and strategic resource globally. The reality is current mine supply is under stress in maintaining current production levels, let alone growing current production. The economic consequence is that the current production is becoming increasingly higher in cost as mines head into the latter years of their useful lives. To underpin this reality, one just needs to review the last 10 years. Uranium prices have risen from $17 a pound to $100 a pound, and there has effectively been no new material supply response. That's because there isn't purely a uranium price challenge. It's far broader, incorporating Discovery Challenge, Permitting Challenge, CapEx Challenge. It requires significantly elevated uranium prices over a significant amount of time to begin to solve this challenge. For NextGen, the supply-demand backdrop and limited market buffer continues to reinforce our marketing strategy, one that can be summarised as maximising the value of every pound produced by maximising the leverage to future uranium prices. Our strategy is being received by the market well as it undeniably benefits all participants by ensuring a more transparent and liquid market is developed and that both suppliers and consumers are able to respond to market changes with certainty to underpin the billions of dollars currently being deployed on a scale never witnessed before into nuclear energy infrastructure. As the company most exposed to the future prices of uranium globally, NextGen will be able to maximise value in this highly constructive backdrop of structural supply deficits. Our strategy and structuring of off-take agreements to optimise the return on every pound produced has not been commonplace amongst producers over the past years and decades, but it's pleasing to see this NextGen approach is now being reflected more broadly amongst industry participants. and can only act in the best interest of all participants for a sustainable and successful industry. With respect to our contracting activities, we continue to advance multiple off-tape discussions with utilities across the US, Europe and Asia Pacific. We expect to formalise additional agreements through 2026 with an unrelenting commitment to maintaining our leverage to future uranium prices, whilst providing customers access to an incredibly strategic supply source. As the structural supply deficit widens, the window to make meaningful new discoveries is now, and our unparalleled ability to deliver new, high-quality supply will play a critical role in meeting the world's future energy needs. Our winter drill program at Paterson Corridor East, PCE, continues to deliver highly encouraging results, further highlighting both the scale and growth potential of PCE. We've increased the vertical extent of the high-grade subdomain by 33% to 550 metres vertical, with a growing strike length of over 200 metres, reinforcing the size of the system. Recent drilling continues to demonstrate strong continuity of high-grade mineralisation across multiple holes, with wide intercepts and clear extension at depth, and importantly, the system remains open for further expansion. In parallel, we are also seeing early indications of a separate parallel trend, highlighting the potential for multiple zones of mineralisation within the broader PCE system. With only 30% of the 42,000-metre drilling program completed for 2026, a significant summer drilling program is about to commence in late May, and we see substantial opportunity for further growth of the system. Advancing this drill program methodically and responsibly today is how we ensure we are ready to be a reliable Western supplier for many decades to come. As construction activity for the Route 1 project commences, our exploration team remains laser focused on further defining and expanding this exciting discovery, as well as the peripheral work on the 190,000 hectares of prime land position with an additional 3,500 metre program at SW3 and geophysics on SW1 to identify new opportunities for growth. On construction, with approvals now secured, the company is set to commence full-scale construction of the Rook One project this coming Northern Hemisphere summer, advancing long-term economic benefits, skilled employment, sustainable regional growth and reinforcing Canada's leadership in nuclear energy. It's great to see our RUC1 project being recognised as a key pillar in the federal government's nuclear objectives for Canada. The team, procurement, engineering, vendors, contractors and capital are all in place. This readiness is underpinned by the deliberate assembly of a highly experienced team with deep expertise in hard rock mining, aligned with the unique basin rock setting of the deposit, and complemented by strong uranium processing capability and experience in the Athabasca Basin. Since founding the company in 2021, NextGen has built around elite standards. Elite standards in planning, discipline, accountability, and it is these ingrained standards combined with a highly experienced project team representing more than 2,900 years of combined global experience across underground mining, uranium milling and major project execution that positions NextGen to deliver construction with the same consistency and rigour that has defined NextGen to date. We have advanced Rook One with a clear focus on discipline execution, drilling over 400,000 metres safely at an industry-leading cost efficiency, while investing approximately $748 million to date at Rook One. Throughout this period, we have consistently delivered meeting our commitments, maintaining strict cost control and meeting key milestones. That track record is the standard we carry into construction. Importantly, construction readiness is well advanced. Key elements are in place, including capital path procurement activities for the initial two years, including the shaft sinking contractor secured and engaged, and the freeze plant ready for delivery to site. Our $100 million exploration site infrastructure program initiated in 2025, inclusive of accommodation expansion to over 600 beds, road upgrades to enable more safe and efficient traffic flow, and the airstrip is on budget, schedule, and fully meeting the scope. This is a direct reflection of how we execute over the next four years. $2.2 billion in capex spent to build our project is made up of a number of $5 million to $100 million scopes, and we are executing the next phase successfully and early. Our approach is highly structured, with clear accountability and daily oversight across every aspect of the build with a view on operational efficiency. We will be hosting an investor update call in the near future to transparently present each phase of construction pathway with registration details to follow in May. We have strong financial flexibility supported by a cash position of over $1 billion at the end of Q1. We continue to access a range of highly creative financing options and are assessing these with discipline, ensuring we select the optimal path while preserving our current strength and flexibility. The world is changing fast and the role of energy is being redefined in real time. What was once a transition led by climate ambition is now driven by security, reliability and execution. The Middle East disruption has reinforced this shift exposing the fragility of global energy systems and accelerating the move towards stable, domestically controlled nuclear power. At the same time, electrification, AI and industrial growth are driving unprecedented demand for reliable baseload energy, positioning nuclear at the centre of the next phase of global development. As a result, uranium is no longer a cyclical commodity. It is a strategically critical resource and the market is approaching a tipping point where sustained demand and constrained supply will define the years ahead. NextGen's industry leverage to future uranium prices, optimised by our contracting strategy, combined with our uncontracted uranium resource, which totals currently 340 million pounds, makes NextGen the best positioned company in the uranium sector, to maximise returns and value for our investors. Thank you and I look forward to updating you on our progress throughout this transformative year. Now I'll open the call to questions.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. To join the question queue, you may press star then 1 on your telephone keypad. You will hear a tone acknowledging your request. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing any keys. Should you wish to decline from the polling process, please press star followed by the number two. We will pause momentarily as callers join the queue. The first question today comes from Anthony Taglieri with Canaccord. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Thanks, guys, for taking my questions. Maybe just on long-term contracting, you know, you guys have mentioned wanting to remain flexible. What does the right level of contracting look like then for next-gen? And, you know, are the pricing terms you're seeing out there currently in terms of floors and ceilings, you know, attractive enough to incentivize you guys to layer in materially more contracts? Or would you rather see or do you think you'll see better pricing terms moving forward?

Yeah, I'll start the question there, Anthony, and then hand over to Travis. This is developing very, very quickly, the market, and recent market commentary by another industry participant was very clear with respect to the way price is heading, well above $100 a pound, and they're seeing that now in their negotiations. That's very similar to our experience as well, one which we kicked off over 18 months ago, And with respect to NextGen, our overriding principle is to maintain absolute exposure to future prices at the time of delivery. Now, future prices at the time of delivery are often a combination of spot, floors and ceilings. I also would like to make the point that it's not a uniform approach. It's horses for courses. So... Various utilities have different preferences for structures of contracts. Some are happy for all spots. Some are happy for floors and ceilings. And they are in the, you know, the floors are, you can typically think of them as at or near spot with the ceiling approximately double that of what the floor is and escalated. Some are happy with no floor and a very high ceiling. Now, we have a combination of all of those with the four contracts that we currently have. It's to the tune of £10 million in total over the first five years. And we currently have £28 million uncontracted per year going forward over those five years and then £30 million thereafter. Now, we take a very staged approach We're not going to have an approach where we fix where we want a certain percentage in under contract and a certain percentage available for realisation at that particular point in time. So I guess to answer your question the best is, yeah, we are, we do have contracts in place. We are negotiating further contracts, which will be a combination of those structures. The overall principle, though, will maintain our industry-leading position of realising the optimal pricing achievable at the time of delivery, which is very heavily tied to prices at the time of delivery. And it's just common sense when you've got a project in a premium jurisdiction and let's face it, Athabasca Basin is the best jurisdiction globally for a uranium project, with very high certainty of production and a very low economic cost per pound. It's our job to maximise return to shareholders, and you do that by having a perspective of optimising the return on every single pound produced. I can't predict where the price is going to be precisely by a certain date, I am extremely confident that the price is going well above $100 a pound in the short term, and I don't see any material production coming online globally. And I want to make the point NextGen will – £30 million will only be replacing what's coming or what is forecasted to come offline between now and 2030. And so our view is, which is based on technical and financial fact, is that the uranium price is going significantly higher. And we had that perspective five years ago. We've proven to be right. We didn't lock in contracts that may have seemed attractive at the time, but are now underwater relative to the spot price today. And it's proven to be right. And that's our view going forward. And so... I can't give you a precise percentage of under contract and then still available to sell, but the important takeaway is we will maintain our position as being the world's most levered uranium company to the future price of uranium. Travis, have I missed anything there?

No, I just really emphasize exactly that, you know, patience has paid next gen in this market and we don't see that slowing down. So, Being patient while still, you know, when contracts make sense for us to sign, we'll sign them with aligned counterparties. But we're not in a rush and there's no necessity to do any more contracts by a certain date or a certain percent by a certain date. So patience continues to pay us and we'll continue to, you know, recognize what we have, how scarce it is, and particularly going forward so that we can absolutely maximize the returns for everyone involved.

Great. Thanks, guys. That's very clear. Maybe just a follow-up on project financing. So I'm sure there's a lot of things happening in the background. Obviously, with a strong treasury, you aren't necessarily hard-pressed to come to a conclusion there. Maybe some color would be great. You know, how have things progressed, structures that maybe you guys have looked at, and, you know, maybe when we could see something finalized there.

Travis? Sure.

Yeah, thanks, Lee. Yeah, I mean, again, going back to the quality of what we're talking about here and all the points Lee made, I mean, there's a lot of options for us and very attractive and creative options. As you point out, you know, with over a billion dollars, you know, that's kind of half the capex on the balance sheet as we speak. So there is no rush or urgency and the market is developing quickly, and we have a lot of key milestones upcoming, including obviously commencing construction, but also, you know, a lot of exciting events along the path. So we're not in a rush. In terms of options, you know, I'd say nothing's materially changed from what we've previously discussed. So prepayments on product, that's obviously a big focus. And then, you know, all the – project finance and convertibles and all the other things that we've talked about are obviously options for us, but we have a very, what do you want to call it? Champagne problems, I guess, in the sense we have so many options, all of which are very, very attractive. And so we're still evaluating and going through doing our due diligence and counterparties involved and structures involved, making sure that we capture where the market is going and make sure it's placing it. Because, you know, if we lock in a financing that's reflective of what's going on today, it's not going to look great in a few years' time. So we have to also maintain, you know, our exposure to the future.

Yeah, and we won't be acute about it. We'll do it, you know, well ahead of time. And at a time that makes sense for us, worked so far that we could have secured financing two years ago for the CapEx, but it would have been at a lower spot price at the time and on not a sound turn. So as I said, our positions at the spot price is rising. A higher spot price means the cost of capital comes down and that's our responsibility to shareholders and we're not going to run the Treasury to zero. And we've always proven a very strong track record in raising funds optimally in the market at the time and in the least diluted fashion. So that's going to continue and you'll see news of that in due course.

Great, thanks for that. I will pass it on.

The next question comes from Ralph Profitti with Stiefel. Please go ahead.

Thanks, operator. Good morning, and thanks for taking my questions. Lee, of the 29,000 meters this summer, you know, what does the pipeline look like? Because it's going to be significantly bigger than the winter program. Where are you prioritizing between the high-grade subdomains, some of these parallel structures? You know, is there any discussion to changing the strategy as the picture evolves? And where are the earliest results going to come from?

Yeah. Good morning, Ralph. And great question, which is always evolving. You can think of those meters as three quarters of them are focused purely on PCE looking for extensions, not just in the footprint at PCE, but those high-grade subdomains. And they are still materialising. As I speak with PCE, there's no project other than Arrow, or no deposit other than Arrow, that demonstrates such strong... continuity, high-grade, broadness in competent basement rock in the basement other than Arrow. Like PCE is replicating all of those amazing features of Arrow, but it's still formant. and we're still trying to get an understanding of its entire extent, both the footprint but also those high-grade subdomains within it. Given that, the majority of those metres are going to be directed at those two objectives. The third is looking for those parallel zones of mineralisation to PCE. Now, those who are very familiar with the story and our exploration history know that we're incredibly structured around our exploration. We don't spray holes anywhere. Every hole has to have an enormous amount of merit. It goes through a very rigorous process of evaluation before it's drilled, right up towards myself and the board. And so as you get results, it can change the weighting to, all right, we're going to put some emphasis in understanding the high-grade subdomain within the area of mineralisation, because if you hit one of those high-grade holes, it it's incredibly material to the overall resource calculation. But, you know, similar to what Travis said around the financing, it is a fantastic challenge to have as to where do you put those holes. Every hole, though, I can tell you, is going to be very, very productive in advancing our understanding of PCE. I think at a minimum, whilst we don't have a resource estimate on it but given the economics at Arrow and once you've sunk all the capital at Arrow, these PCE pounds would be classed, I believe it's reasonable to say, are most likely economic and improving by the day. So playing devil's advocate, if we didn't even have Arrow when we made this discovery, it would be the hottest news on the planet in the uranium space as we speak. I think Arrow... It's a bit unfair to PCE because it exists only three and a half kilometres away and it's probably taken a bit of its limelight. But I'd just encourage everyone to really... And we released the results today and we've got more assays coming and another 29,000 metres. You know, this is an incredibly exciting story in resources full stop and right alongside the construction... of what is currently the world's most globally significant uranium resource going into production in four years from now.

Yeah, thanks. I appreciate that. As a follow-up, Lee, without front-running the larger scheduling update that's coming, I do appreciate having Chris on the call. What's the latest thinking around the schedule and the timing around the surface freezing strategy, right? How does that look like in the early stages of construction starting in those first few months?

Yeah, I can give a high level and then hand over to Chris. And look, I'd remind everyone, we're going to have details imminently around a very detailed webinar around the construction. We're going to be introducing the team right up to Ivan Mulaney, who's our director with an enormous amount of world-class mining project construction experience, and go through the stages of construction and be very transparent around what that looks like so people can make their own assessment of progress. And I'm very much looking forward to myself and the team presenting that, most likely sometime in June. But holistically, from the moment we start construction officially, and you start the freezing process, there's around six months, of freezing whilst you're adding to the surface infrastructure in order to commence sinking. Sinking through the overburden will be six to nine months until you're into the basement rock. Once you're in the basement rock, and I don't want to take too much of the profile away from this webinar we're about to do, but I'll give you a preview. Once you're into that basement rock, which will have occurred six to nine months after the commencement of shaft preparation, the risk around cost and schedule variability goes down to near on zero due to the competency of the rock. So everyone's going to have, like it's not going to be a four-year risk assessment that the most riskiest part is the overburden, and it's going to be determined before the end of year two and once we're in the basement rock. And everyone should very much, you know, dial in on that aspect of it. Now, having said that, whilst I say it's the most risky part of the construction, the overall risk profile of our project is very, very low risk for a mining project. We've been planning this for over seven years. We have the team in place. We've been reviewing those plans for seven years. We know exactly what each member of the team and of our contractor team is doing on every single day over the next four years. And we have a management system in place which gives us real-time assessment of any variable and allows us to take action accordingly. So it's, as I said, I very much look forward to this presentation, which you'll hear a lot more from Chris in June. And everyone will have a very transparent analysis of what that construction program looks like, what's entailed and the way we're approaching it. And it's an incredibly exciting time for everyone involved. Chris, would you like anything you'd like to add that I may have overlooked?

No, I think you covered it, Lee. The freezing is obviously a key element of achieving the sync and the focus of the team right now. And so far as starting the site development this summer and preparing for ground freezing by early next year, participants are reminded that the freeze plants themselves have already been ordered and are stored off-site, ready to be deployed. as well as the sinker being engaged and active in the project. So we are well on our way to achieving the schedule that will be laid out further in the June call.

Great. Thank you for that preview.

The next question comes from George Ida with UBS. Please go ahead.

Yeah, good day, Lee, and thanks for the call today. Just back to PCE, do we still think about this as likely accessed underground via Arrow and going up the Rookshaft infrastructure? And I guess secondly there, what is the permanent status of PCE? Can you just remind me and talk through the steps given it's different or potentially using the other infrastructure?

G'day George. As we speak, I would say that is a very real possibility based on what we know of all the technical facts. PCE is contained in the same basement rock as Arrow, only three and a half kilometres away. Conceptually, you would run a tunnel from the underground engineering workings of Arrow over to PCE and access it. And the ore would come up through the same production shaft as what you see as designed for Arrow. Having said that, PCE is outside the boundary for the approved licence and construction of the Rook 1 project. Now, having said that, everything we've seen to date is that it's the same mineralisation, it's the same ore body. There's been an incredible mineralising event on Rook 1, and I don't think we've remotely... or defined the true extent of uranium mineralisation. For those who have been on the story since 2013, we'll know that we found Arrow with only the 21st drill hole on the property, but the very first drill hole within a 4.5km radius. We are discovering mineralisation way better than the odds are in mineral exploration. It's We've clearly got an incredibly good approach to exploration but are we that good that we find the wells best with the first drill hole within a four and a half kilometre radius in the middle of nowhere? I don't think we are that good. To say there's additional minimisation there I think is anyone who's looked at the geological setting, everyone would concur there's a lot more yet to be discovered and defined. If you're thinking about a scenario of increasing the production at PCE, that would be subject to an amendment in the permitting with respect to the exploitation of PCE. But having said that, given it's the same mineralisation, it's only three and a half kilometres away... You know, the mineralisation at Paterson Lake South is, we suspect, based on all the facts that have been reported, it's the same mineralising event as well, and that's 7.5 kilometres away. It wouldn't be the same process as what NextGen went through right from the beginning. All of that environmental data analysis over a 10-year period is still incredibly valid and will be valid during our operations, and so... I would say the process of getting access or approval, and this is a forward-looking statement, would be relatively certain but again subject to the rigorous oversight of the CNSC and the Ministry of Environment in Saskatchewan which we fully embrace.

Yeah, okay. No, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that, Lee. And just last one, sorry. Just thinking timelines for the rest of the year. So we've got the webinar probably in June, as you said. And I think in the past you said more contracts will be released by year end, or sorry, by 26th year. Is that right? Is the financing package more of a 2027 story given commentary before?

Yeah, no, I think it's either going to be in 2026 or early 2027. The financing package, additional contracts, they will be released as we secure them on the terms that we're happy with and that of the utility as well. We have the official commencement of construction this summer. We're just coordinating a number of VIP attendances. who have expressed very strong interest in attending the opening ribbon-cutting ceremony that involves government, community chiefs, community leaders, shareholders, industry representatives as well. And you're going to see a lot of activity at site. It's going to be an absolute hive of activity and fun. With the airstrip, we'll be also facilitating a number of site visits as well. And with the airstrip, the logistics of entry and exit to the site safely has been significantly elevated. So, yeah, an incredibly busy year, one that we've been preparing for for over seven years now. So keep watching this space and all along with PCE results, which... You know, they haven't disappointed yet. They've been incredible, and every indication is that that is going to continue.

Right. Thanks for the color. Thanks, Dave.

The next question comes from Oris Lockdow with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Lee and Travis, I was hoping you could give us some color on how you're thinking in terms of potentially flexing material with respect to volume at the mine. I mean, your asset will be the single largest or could be the single largest producer in the world. That's a lot of material to come on in the early years. Can you remind us of sort of how you're thinking about your philosophy with respect to volume versus price here and whether we could see the arrow run at lower rates if there's a negative price reaction in the market.

I'll start, Oris, and then hand over to Travis. Very simply, the project is capable of 30 million pounds per annum produced at 1,300 tons per day. That's one of the world's tiniest underground mines, hard rock underground mines. Hence, we have a very low cost of, if we were to produce 30 million pounds basically an expense of 350 million a year. Now, we would produce and store if we were not satisfied that we were getting a fair price for our production. And we can do that because we have a very low cost base of producing 30 million pounds per annum, as opposed to dialing back reduction and having to terminate a number of staff. We're not going to do that. So first of all, every market indicator we have seen, and as I said, we're very technically and financially fact-based and we've been proven to be correct as to where this uranium price is going. On top of that, the amount of inbound calls that we have with respect to the volumes that we have under negotiation for offtake. I am certain we'll be producing at 30 million pounds per annum from the very first year of production. We will continue that. And as I said, it's not really a question as to whether the market's there. If it is not at a price that we deem appropriate, we will produce and store. And I want to be very clear on that because I think there's been some other market participants that have insinuated that 30 million pounds would just be hitting the spot market. We've never said that. It's completely incorrect. And I've been very, very clear with our approach. And I would just encourage everyone to focus on what we are saying because everything we've said since 2011, we have done. and going into construction and production, we will continue to do everything we said we will do and be very transparent about it. There's no tricks, nothing. This industry is very simple. You need to be able to produce uranium at X and sell it for a price well beyond X. And that gap needs to be able to pay back the capex. Our gap between X and the current price of $85 is paying back the entire capex within 11 months. So a very simple economic equation at NextGen. We're becoming a top 10 world mining company based on after-tax cash flow at 30 million pounds per year at the current spot price. And that is our strategy. And we actually feel that the spot price is going to be significantly higher when we are actually in production. and we're seeing the level of demand certainly supporting that. So that is our approach on it. It will always be our approach, and we look forward to executing it.

Thanks for the call.

The next question comes from Craig Hutchinson with TV Cowan. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning, guys. I just want to circle back on the shaft question there. I think you mentioned, Lee, in your opening remarks, you guys have awarded the shaft contract. Can you just confirm if that's correct? And then if you have, is that contract based on a fixed price or are you guys managing yourself?

Yes, we have awarded that contract. And I'll hand over to Travis as the chief commercial officer who has been the quarterback on that contract stretcher.

Yeah. Yeah. Thanks, Lee. And thanks for the question, Craig. Yeah. The short answer is no. The shaft sinking contract will not be a fixed price contract. Realistically, that's not really a model that actually makes sense for a contract like a shaft sink. But what we've done without getting into, obviously, commercial details, but we've aligned, you know, the risk of shaft sinking, which, again, to Lee's earlier point, in our case, is actually quite low. but there are obviously some uncertainties there. And so what we've done is kind of a risk, a pain gain model. So there's bonuses and incentives for, you know, safety performance schedule and budget, as well as, you know, pain in the event that those things don't go accordingly. And so in that sense, you know, ourselves and our shaft sinking partner, as well as, you know, the important, I think nuance here is that we have, essentially a self-performed shaft syncing team in-house at NextGen that's not only been across, obviously, the technical requirements and our own assessment of what it will take to successfully complete the shaft sync, both in terms of scope, schedule, and budget, but also in terms of what are the best models for, you know, aligning incentives because really that's all we need to do. And so it's a – so, again, the short answer is it's a pay and gain contract with a lot of great synergies between, you know, the shaft sinker ourselves and the broader team. So we're extremely excited about, you know, who we've got partnering with us, our own team's assessment, and the model in terms of the contractual model that we've employed here.

Okay, perfect. I know you guys hear me.

Sorry, and Craig, with respect to the cost and the feasibility study, the contract that we have in place, there's very strong alignment, which shows to the actual cost as what was presented in the August feasibility study, which shows that our feasibility studies have always been very conservative. in nature. And they're always done on the basis that NextGen was building this ourselves and operating the project as well. So these were always, even from the very first scoping study through to the definitive feasibility study, the whole principle of these studies have been to inform us on the design and cost as next-gen being the builder and the operator of the mine. And so there's really good evidence there that Travis has outlined with respect to the shaft thinking and the underground engineering of very close synergy between what's being presented and now what's being executed.

That was essentially my next question. I know with the construction update in June, I was just wondering if you guys were... planning to have a CapEx update with that number? Sounds like you guys are pretty comfortable with the number you already have given the market.

Yeah, we've seen nothing to date. Yeah, obviously, labour changes, you know, the impact on the price of diesel would have an impact. But as I said, we have the conservative nature of the $2.2 billion. was clearly evident in August of 2024. Everything we've done to date, we are still in that $2.2 billion range. Now, if that changes materially and changes our ability to finance the project, we'll be the first to be transparently informed the market of that. But as I said, what we've seen to date, everything is intact from a materiality perspective.

Okay, perfect. And this is my last question. This is back on PC. You guys mentioned it's probably getting lost in the limelight of Arrow. Just any thoughts around a timing for a maiden resource to just put more focus in that project?

I don't see one as we speak in 2026. You know, we're doing an internal assessment around that at the moment, Craig. If that is Again, we'll be the first to inform the market, but I think that's reasonably expected sometime in 2027. Obviously, heavily subject to the next 29,000 metres over the summer period.

Understood. Okay. I appreciate the answers, guys. Thanks.

Thanks, Craig. The next question comes from Alexander Pierce with BMO. Please go ahead.

Morning all. So just building on the PCE questions you've had so far, obviously you've had great success with the exploration for that deposit. And it's based on the comments you just made, it's probably reasonable to assume you're going to be drilling out and working on this thing for the next couple of years. Is it possible to give us an idea of how much you expect to spend, let's say, over the next 12 to 24 months, given what you know about the project so far?

For PCE, another 30,000 metres or 29,000, approximately $10 million. And, you know, the price of diesel would impact that maybe a little higher from a drilling cost. So, yeah, it's a... It's a sizable program in the Athabasca Basin for 2026 and I would just like to make the point Alex, our geological team operates independently from the construction team so there's no distraction whatsoever on the construction as a result of the exciting results coming from PCE. But yeah, from this moment on, for the balance of 2026, about $10 million is budgeted for the remaining PCE drilling.

Great. Thanks, Lee. Thanks, Alex.

The next question comes from Brian MacArthur with Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. It relates to PCE as well, and a lot of my questions have been answered. But maybe philosophically, an even bigger question for PCE and how strategic this may be going forward. When you talk to utilities about signing contracts, do you think they're willing to give you value for it yet? And it really goes to this. I mean, you've got, as Orit said, a bunch of five years of very high production. You've talked about extending it. But say we got into an environment like 15 years ago when people wanted to sell 10 or 20-year contracts. Someone might say to you, you don't have that long of a reserve life. Is there anyone out there who's willing to sort of pay for that yet? And can you use that in your negotiating tactics going forward? Thank you.

I might start the answer and hand over to Travis. First of all, I don't think there's another project out there with a longer resource life than NextGen as we speak. And I can't see that changing anytime soon, particularly with PPE. So I don't really see us being limited, Brian, if I've understood your question, with respect to the demand for longevity of reliable supply. There's a lot of the current producers whose mines are going to be expended in the 2030 decade, early in the 2030 decade. And we've seen from Casataprom, they've been very, very clear with their production profile come 2029, 2030, it significantly reduces quickly. So I don't actually see, you know, the... inhibitor on demand from a utility looking for a secure long life uptake contract we are really front and center if that is their requirement and i would also say not so much pce but i think with i put it down to receiving the permit um which took everyone by by by very pleasant surprise, being 14 days after the conclusion of the Part 2 hearing, the amount of imbalance has come up since the granting of the permit. So I think that's been also a factor as well with the utility demand. Travis?

Yeah, I would just reiterate similar points. We're not having any issue with demand. We're just not executing ones, you know, over the quarter. But that's by next-gen's choosing. So there's tons of demands. We don't really need any, like, there's no outstanding questions from utilities around, you know, should we try to get contracts from next-gen? Like, everyone wants contracts with next-gen. It's really our determination as to whether they make sense for us at this point in time. And, yeah, to Lee's point, like not once has it come up in any contract negotiation or discussion or otherwise about, you know, the reserve life or resource life of Arrow. Like everyone understands what we're talking about, which is a generational project coming online at a time where everything else is basically coming offline. So, yeah. Yeah.

And I would also suspect Denison would be in a similar position with the approval of their project as well, that the number of inbound calls to Denison would have increased as well. Because, yeah, NextGen can't solve all the utilities' supply requirements on its own. And that's even if the current producers were able to maintain current production levels, which... I would say it's less likely than more likely. We don't wish anyone any ill will, but there's evidence right across the globe around production issues, sulfuric acid supply issues in Kazakhstan. The list goes on. To Travis's point, there's no shortage of demand and anyone who's taking a project into production that has a healthy resource life, fully exposed to the future price of uranium, are in the leading positions with respect to economic returns of the future.

Maybe I would just ask you back to the other question then, because that's sort of where I'm going with this. It's a big shortfall out in the future. People start to think they're going to expand above 30 million pound pots. post senior negotiations, post 2030?

I would say that at the moment we couldn't commit to that because we will only commit to what we can, a certain we can deliver. And as we speak, we are permitted for 30 million pounds. We're permitted to construct a project that will be capable of 30 million pounds per annum once in operation. So that is all we are managing as we speak. If PCE materialises and we commence the amendment to the permit or the addition to the existing permit to facilitate that, that's a whole new exercise which is going to take a lot of... to conclude. And we are not going to do it at any expense to getting Rook One into production at 30 million pounds per annum for the time being.

Great, very clear. Thanks, Lee, and Travis for that. And just, sorry, you keep, the other day I just want to check, talking about 29,000 metres of drilling, In January, I believe you announced 42,000 and then another 3,500 to SW3. Has anything changed or what's the difference?

No, that's correct. No, you're exactly right, Brian. We did about 10,200 meters in the winter before we had the stop, given the thaw and the ground conditions. The program for 2026 was at 42,000 metres. We've done 10,200 of it or thereabouts and the balance of the 42,000 metres including the 3,500 metres will occur prior to the end of 2026.

And sorry, my last question. Given how strategic and interesting this could be, Is there any reason why you wouldn't advance this faster? I mean, I take your focus on, the focus has got to be on aero, but is there any reason why you can't go a little faster just constrained by drills and stuff at the moment?

Yeah, I'd say it's a combination of those things, Brian. You know, we've got a history of doing what we do well. We're very foundational, like bottom up. conservative, I guess, to a certain degree. Well, conservative around execution. We are very driven to deliver what we said we would before elevating further. Look, I think, I love the question. I love the perspective about where PC is heading. I just, I only like to, you know, comment on things I can be conclusive about. Everything looks great at PCE. I think the optionality that it gives NextGen is incredible. But we're just not advanced enough yet to be more conclusive about it. If all of a sudden we hit some zingers at PCE, you know, additional zingers, similar to what happened at Arrow, you know, it changes the whole equation and we will... adjust accordingly. But as I speak, we are very, very focused on constructing safely to scope, to cost and schedule Rook One at 30 million pounds per annum and watching, you know, PCE develop in parallel to it. And I think four rigs and everything, given our resources and our focus, is a really good balance. It is one of the biggest programs in the Athabasca Basin on its own at PCE. So in context, you know, everyone's incredibly busy at NextGen. So yeah, that's our position on it as it currently stands, Brian.

Thank you very much for answering all my questions. Terrific.

The next question comes from Dave August with Curdie Investments. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is Dee Osborne. Major oil companies, the reserve is not forever. Why wouldn't those companies be interested in stepping in here and having this as the next step in their business? Because their business is not forever. And I'm amazed that you haven't had some discussions with major oil companies to do exactly that.

Excellent question. I think all I could really say there is watch this space. I think you're completely on it. And I think there is realisation by the oil companies as to where this is heading. And I think you'll see that materialise in due course. is about as transparent as I could be around that question. But what you are doing is recognising the importance of nuclear energy and the aspects of the hydrocarbons. You know, there is problematic hydrocarbons given the centralisation of production, yet the global usage You've got a similar situation in uranium as we speak. The current majority of production worldwide is very centralised in Kazakhstan and all countries that have what is considered very substantial sovereign risk. Any uranium producer or company going into production in the near term with an asset in Canada, the US or Australia has a tremendous advantage because it's the Western world which are the largest consumers of nuclear energy currently. And so there has been that mismatch. NextGen, Denison have the opportunity to help return Canada to be the world's leader in the production of nuclear fuel products. And that's going to materialize over the world. And it's energy, which oil is as well. And those big energy companies, you know, they don't want to close down. I think you're going to see that. And you actually saw that in the 1980s. Go through the historical ownership records of uranium deposits in the USA in the 80s. And a lot of them were by oil companies. So, you know, we may see the day where that returns.

You know, if I were a chief executive of a major oil company, I would be looking down the road for the future. And this is the way to do it, is to put this in reserve for when the time comes that the energy is declined, that the source is declined. It would be, if a major company took a look at this and got serious about it, I think it'd be the most productive and forward-thinking that any company could do.

Yeah, I agree. I think it's a very astute observation. I actually, and I agree with you totally, I think the hyperscalers might be a little more nimble and a little more proactive with respect to that actual aspect that you mentioned. It makes perfect sense for an oil company to do it, but I think my prediction is that you'll see the hyperscalers get ahead of the oil companies in the first instance because they are building billions of dollars worth of data centres. They are contracting power rates at multiples of what it currently costs to ensure that the power is coming from nuclear energy. You know, I think they're actually leading the charge in that respect. But no, very astute question.

The next question comes from Graham Tanaka with Tanaka Capital Management. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Congratulations on your progress so far. I'm very curious. You mentioned that PCE could be accessed from Arrow, is that correct, with a horizontal shaft? Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And so, with that kind of scenario, which is new to me, what, could this speed up the development of PCE should it be deemed to be commercially attractive? How much faster could you bring PCE on or when could you bring PCE on if demand does in fact become one of almost perhaps a hyper shortage of uranium in the industry? How fast can you bring PCE on and would it be at a lower cost per pound than aero was de novo?

Yeah, Graeme, I'll start then hand over to Travis. And thanks for the question. Again, conceptually, based on what we know, I think that perspective that the ore at PCE could be accessed from the underground workings at Arrow. But I don't want to look like... I'm very respectful of the regulatory process, and so I want to caveat everything that it is subject to... substantial amount of future drilling, engineering study, environmental study. That is an absolute given. But conceptually, the answer to your question is correct. It could be. But I have no economic cost data as we speak. I think it's reasonable to conclude at a similar cost to what Arrow is without operating costs to Arrow, but without the capex. apart from the tunnel going from the underground workings at arrow 3.5 kilometres to PCE. But, you know, the cost of that would be immaterial relative to the overall economic. So whilst I don't have the precise cost per pound incorporating the parameters of a technical study, I think... conceptually, yes, I believe that is possible. And I think it's reasonable that you would consider at or near similar economic operating costs to the Arrow deposit. But that's as much as I could, you know, we're in a position to convey without further study and regulatory approval. Travis?

Yeah, I might just add to Graham. Just that you raise a good point, actually, which is, you know, back to the earlier question on the oil companies and hyperscalers and all of that, you know, mining is a very long-term business. And so to your question around, you know, speeding things up, you know, the reality is there's only so much you can do to speed up. Once you make a discovery to speed things up, there's obviously some regulatory efficiencies that, you know, the Government of Canada and other policymakers have tried to address. But the bulk majority of, like, look at NextGen as an example, 2014 discovery, four years from now, so 2030 in production, that's 16 years. We didn't waste a minute of a day. And the vast majority of that timeline is actually not regulatorily. It's actually just advancing the project, doing all the drilling, engineering studies, all the other things you need to do. And so, PCE, while they're, to Lee's point, likely be significant, efficiencies and synergies between the fact that we have, you know, the world's best asset built and operating, you know, three and a half kilometers away, there is still just a length of time that it takes. And that speaks to why, you know, our contracting strategy and our certainty around where this market is going is based off of the fact that, you know, we don't have enough supply today. And even when you look out at, okay, well, when could things get into production? Like look at PCE. You know, you're talking many years from now. You can't really speed things up is the point. You can speed them up a little bit, but you can't materially speed them up. So, yeah, I just wanted to make that point.

Yeah. Okay. So relative to that, and investors trying to determine sort of the net present value of that asset, How large do you think PCE could be based on this preliminary drilling that you've done to date? How large could that prospect be relative to Arrow? And what is the possibility that Arrow itself could have significantly more addition to not only resources but annual production, as one of the other analysts was asking about? It seems to me that if there is a shortage scenario that could be, a really serious one for the industry, NextGen might really almost have a responsibility to be able to have some upside flexibility in adding to pounds per year. So I'm just wondering how the dynamics of those two assets, the sizes, and at what point you could expand production in total by NextGen. Thanks.

Yeah. Thanks, Grant. Can't give any guidance on... respective sizes of what PCE relative to Arrow is. We've been very transparent with all of the technical fact and measurements in our news releases and relative to Arrow. That's as conclusive as we can be at this stage. I'll just maybe just take a moment to also highlight that Arrow itself isn't closed off. We've drilled three holes under the grade shell of Arrow, and that grade shell goes down to 920 metres. And we intersected mineralisation in three holes over a distance of 500 metres. There's very clear expansion at Arrow before we even went to PCE. But, yeah, obviously subject to additional drilling, delineation and regulatory approval. In that scenario you outlined, Graham, yeah, we would have a responsibility alongside with the Canadian government. We would work in lock-set with the Canadian government to then execute a development and production profile that got as much uranium processed as possible from the mineralisation within the Rookland project whilst respecting all of the, and meeting all of the regulatory and social aspects that we'll do. So, Graham, yes, we would. Would we meet the challenge? Absolutely, we would. Subject to doing things which involve all the relevant stakeholders and their agreement to it.

Terrific, Greg. Looking forward to hearing about it.

Thanks. Thanks, Ryan.

The next question comes from Mohamed Sidibe with National Bank. Please go ahead.

Hi, Leigh and Tim. Thanks for taking my question. So, most of my questions on PCE and the CAPEX have been answered. So, maybe a question from Ben. On the balance sheet, could you maybe help us think about the convertible debts that you currently have on the book? Should we expect that to run their course? Has there been any indication of willingness for early convert on those entities or in the money, Francis?

Thank you. I'll hand over to Travis as the chief commercial officer, but those converts are well in the forced conversion zone at the end of the third year anniversary. Over to you, Travis.

Yeah, well, exactly. I mean, that summarizes it. So, yes, they're in the money, and And on or after the third anniversary of those converts, we can convert them at our discretion. So, that is the likely scenario. The first year coming up in September of this year and then the next tranche is May of 27. So, we've done that in every case that we've had since we've started these converts back in 2016. We've always done that, and so, you know, it's reasonable to assume that we would continue to do that, all things being equal.

Great. Thank you.

This concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Lee Currier for any closing remarks.

Thank you Bessie and thank you everyone who attended today's call and thank you very much for all the questions we received and thank you to my team of Travis, Ben and Chris. As I said, we look forward to providing the date and time of our webinar around the construction phase and introducing the broader theme. Very exciting time at NextGen and keep watching this space. There's a plethora of exciting developments and we appreciate your interest and support to what is a fantastic good news story in resources in Canada and for the globe. And with ourselves, Denison, We're going to be bringing back Canada as the world leaders in the production of this key fuel for the globe. And we're very proud of our position in it.